is not monism.

Not one! Not two!

To extrapolate on that: Not not one and not not two, as well.

If you read the Heart Sutra, you can get the gist of what appears to be a paradoxical truth in the sense that intellectualizing the investigation contrasts the direct experience implied, which again, due to the nature of language and thought, is a duality-based stance, i.e., intellect and direct.

The same can be said for eternalism and nihilism. Philosophically, you can debate a middle way between them or that they are two ends of polar opposites or that neither is true.

There is no one Buddhism in the sense that there are many schools of thought and practice. However, if you look into the matter you can discover a basic set of core concepts and related methods that predominate.

Although it is usual for any ism to branch-off into various sects and schools, the Dharma is based on the idea of practicing skillful means, i.e., the capacity to adapt and relate the essential meaning in ways that are flexible and related to the listener/student rather than purely dogmatic. That is not always the case in some schools.

Essentially, don't over-think what is being said because that in itself is a trap. Try to think what isn't being said, the unspoken, and that is the basis of being to practice a skillful mean, in this case listening.

Non-dualism in practice =

I'm saddened my the fact that a lot of people, especially those who are supposed to be in the know about the Dharmic philosophies make this most fundamental mistake.

As a fellow practitioner of the Dharmic way (an Advaita Vedanta Hindu to be exact) I had to explain the difference many a time, between monism and non-dualism.


The Sanskrit word Advaita is made up of two words, A+ Dwaita
Dwaita = Dual
A = no/negation in Sanskrit

Thus Advaita means "not-dual".
It explicitly refrains from saying its "one", because according to Advaita philosophy, the moment we say "one" we are caught in the trap of dualistic thought, because if there is "one" there is "two"..or more. There cannot be "one" unless there is something that is "not one" to compare it against.

Sadly a lot of neo-Advaitins, along with Buddhists also fall prey to this non-dual= monism equivalency. It could not be further from the truth.

imho Avdaita Hindu Philosphy and What Buddha spoke are one and the same, albeit one talks about the "self" while the other talks about the "not-self" (atman/anatman). however in the non-dual field these two meet...as they are imho speaking about the same thing, but looking at it from different sides.

As atman and anatman are both said to be beyond description, they both transcend the linguistic hurdles associated with them.


Ps: I hope Buddhist members will not mind a Hindu posting here

joining in and elucidating on the subject. That was helpful and did shed more light on the subject.

Maybe Buddhist members here are aware of just how tolerant and open practice can be and your presence is warmly welcomed since there are important relationships involved.

Welcome and please do share your knowledge of Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, since we know that there is no hard line drawn and Buddhism grew and flourished in that environment.

You are certainly welcome to post in this group!

that when a pupil was complaining that he can't stop thinking/give inner dialogue a rest, the master advised him to think all that he can. AFAIK the point of Buddhism is not to discourage anything but to overcome fears and other forms of suffering. The same master mentioned and stressed the duality and/or unity of form and no-form. What form do you give to no-form?

Monism, dualism, holy Trinity and Infinite forms of infinities bring to mind Gödel's proof that any logical system containing number theory contains statements that cannot be proven inside a finite set of axioms. So what is this obsession to count, to keep numbering?

Information theory is still centered around the binary dualism of either-or, though models of quantum computation have introduced also the notion of qubit and superposition of binary opposition. Is that a Middle Way?

Your contribution of quantum relationships and the limits of systems could probably inspire interest and discussion.

We in the West are still mired in the results and echos of Aristotelian logic as a basis for reality, (both scientifically and conceptually) and it reflects in our use of language, in my opinion. Modern physics tends to radically disprove our gross understanding and experience of matter and existence and it is possible that Buddhism's investigations demonstrated and intuited this to a degree.

This can become more obvious when you explore language and its structure as per Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity, (a hard read) where General Semantics is introduced. There is a newer book that compacts and synthesizes his work.

Your first paragraph is a useful illustration. With a good teacher, or more thorough investigation, an initial obsession with trying not to think can be very useful when followed through. For some, it can be a great way to begin their trek if it leads from an initial curiosity and cautious engagement to jumping right into the arena of the dilemma itself. The energy of frustration can even be the fuel for the fire.

Confusion can be considered an aspect of emptiness in relationship to form. When embraced, it can reveal itself as a potential restructuring and an aspect of learning.

When practice begins, (samantha/vipassana) the relationship of thought and no thought can be known as one taste and that introductory dichotomy can be resolved satisfactorily for one's self.

The Aristotelian 'Law of the Excluded Third' rests on the deeper Law of Identity ("A=A&quot . A presupposition and axiom dearly held by most of Western logical schools.

In English syntax it is very difficult to "give rest" to the "dualistic" distinction between subject and object, in other languages that distinction is not always necessary, in my language (Finnish) a verb without subject and object can be a full sentence. I've also tried E-prime, it makes some sense in English and practicing the letting go of the Law of Identity, but in my native language my experiments with E-prime have produced worst kind of post-modern clumsy gibberish, while the non-personal registers of my language flow naturally, also in the word for be ('ollaan'), which takes quite different meaning from the English "essentialism".

in language and its relationship to dualistic thinking is useful approach ant relative to modern explorations of Buddhism.

Yes, my interest in E-prime (which was actually inspired by Robert Anton Wilson's interest) was along the same lines. At the very least, it jumps on the formal usage of the impact and relationship of "to be" to our thinking and behavior in terms of its limitations and common usage. As you may know, it is used in scientific writing in an attempt to achieve greater precision and clarity. Anyone who has attempted to use it in their own writing might find that the challenge itself can be insightful.

I have encountered several attempts to expand on Cartesian coordinates as a means to loosen the strictures of black and white thinking, as well. Leibniz approached the problem and Korzybski, (back in the thirties) nailed some essential problems and confusions about semantics Both seemed to demonstrate the value and insights that a mathematical approach can bring to communication and thought structures. However, I am not a linguist, so that subject matter is more of a personal exploration.

My thoughts are that there are, at least, three potential ways to delve deeply into the dualism in language. The first is that language is, by its very nature, dualistic because it is always a form of abstraction, i.e., about something but not the thing. For instance, I have a thought and, wanting to know about what the thought is, i generate another thought about it, etc. Cat is not a cat.

Our need and ability to abstract is not exclusive to our species, it is only the complexity of the phenomena that differs. Even a cell, when poked with a wire will abstract, (in gradients across the cell membrane, as per Korzybski) the stimuli and "represent" the effect upon itself as an abstraction of the actuality.

The second point in relation to my experience and understanding about Buddhist insights into this matter is that, on a gross level where we are thoroughly enmeshed, (captivated) in our self-representations of what is, that is also the extreme aspect of our absorption in dualistic thinking and experience. That involves the practical and pragmatic need to identify self and other, proximity and time, which exist, but merely as a matter of identification that allows us to easily function. it really isn't difficult to realize the delusion whereby the abstractions are taken for reality itself, or as it is.

From that perspective, consider a conversation. I speak, you listen. You speak, I listen. Yet, the divisions are conceptual and can even be exposed as arbitrary. You can try to draw exact lines that turn-out to be a matter of utility and context when deeply investigated. Trying to discover an actual, concrete division, (from my thoughts/brain to my vocal chords as vibrations traveling through the air to your eardrum and into your brain and through your filters/beliefs/experiences/knowledge for formulating a representation) is where it may be possible to directly know the spontaneity of a dependent arising and if there is an actual, (or represented) and satisfactory division to be found. That is a matter for inquiry, insight and experience, however.

The third perspective is that of meditation, which is utilized as a tool to directly investigate the nature of self, other and reality itself. This, from a Buddhist perspective, could even be a logical result of following the track of linguistic dualism, (and hence, its distortions and self-replication) to a direct, internal comprehension, if you are willing to follow through with it. We are the laboratory itself and we already have all the means to perform the experiments and prove the theory ourselves if we are so inclined.

Even if our tools are covered in the mud of conditioning and illusions and are not yet finely calibrated for best results, they are immediate and no money down. The manuals are out there and the Dharma can be a viable method for performing the operations.

I apologize for the long reflection on your remarks, but the subject of language is pertinent and pregnant with possibility.

I've also enjoyed math, up to my capabilites (and limits of the moment).

Don't let anybody ever tell you
that you anything less than beautiful

Thank you tama.

Actually I can think and talk a bit too much, but you and I were having an exchange that seemed to warrant some depth. Complexity can be simple and simplicity can be complex, sometimes.

You are quite the thinker and I admire the nature of your inquiry and direction of thought and they are reflections of a flowering mind.

P.S. My math skills are rather poor, but math as a tool for understanding is of interest.

tama, I like your formulation of "Monism, dualism, holy Trinity and Infinite forms of infinities". I'd even add Empedocles' four elements to stretch it out a bit before departing for infinity. However one "number" is significantly missing from that ordered set. It is of course zero - the origin, the point at which all numbering collapses. This may be what the term "non-dual" points to, rather than the notion of one.

I guess this is what people mean when they speak of the void (or more pretentiously, The Void) - the moment in which all conception ceases, along with all numbering, motion and relationship. What I'm still wrestling with is my all-too-human tendency to conceive of the void/origin/zero point as Unity. It's a seductive notion, that the void can be approached through unity. I suspect, however, that they are utterly different "things", and that the void is as inaccessible from unity as it is from duality (trinity/quaternity/countable infinity)

Going back to Empedocles, he has an interesting notion (according to Peter Kingsley, at any rate) that the unity of which we are all so desperately fond is a pure deception - a mirage, a veil drawn before our eyes by Aphrodite as she mixes and incarnates the four divine primordial elements to create this illusion of reality.

Of course, even the Advaitin sense of no-self remains only a conception unless one is residing within it. Being human means moving in and out of the not-two state of complete "awareness-directed awareness", and even most awakened ones seem to spend a lot more time out of that state than in it. When one is in it nothing can be conceived. When one is not in it, conception is all there is.

Is it helpful to talk about this? To the extent that it helps us remember who we are, perhaps. Beyond that, no. Typing about it on the internet is an interesting, if somewhat eccentric, pastime. I enjoy typing about it, but that's only because I'm not in it. In those evanescent moments when I have been graced by it, "I" am nowhere to be found - neither on the internet, nor in my living-room.

I needed a good read. My mind is so happy now.

With the wisdom and humility. Serious discussion.